dismissedOCT272023_01B52032023-10-27 · appeal · Texas Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner owns and manages his own energy engineering company, providing energy audits, efficiency upgrades, and renewable energy/EV infrastructure services to commercial and residential clients.
Field: electrical and energy engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it is not clear how the Petitioner's small business in Florida would address energy inefficiencies in commercial spaces on a national scale”
“these numbers and additional sales forecasts included in the business plan do not appear to be based on current operational figures for the Petitioner's company”
“the content of these reports and studies... does not speak to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor to manage a single company”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these numbers and additional sales forecasts included in the business plan do not appear to be based on current operational figures”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not speak to the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor to manage a single company providing services in the energy sector”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, noting the Petitioner's experience evidence was relevant to prong 2 rather than prong 1 where it was submitted.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers